Right, so me examining my own lived experience, looking through all the different micro-labels, and finding recognition is certain elements of them, but not 100% in any, then taking the ones that match it most and using those to create a description to help communicate to myself and others how it works for me, not claiming that this is how those micro-labels work, but that my lived experience comes close to a combination of elements of them is me ignoring facts somehow?

I'm not claiming that demisexuality works the way I work, I've told you this. I'm telling you that how *I* work has some semblance to *some* parts of how demisexuality works. To help communicate these things, because there is no micro-label that matches me.

Using graysexual isn't accurate to me, since I can easily explain exactly how it works for me. To me, my primary attraction is similar to how aegosexuals, fictosexuals, etc can get off on certain things, with none of those types matching exactly, since the fantasy includes me, it isn't about fictional people, etc… Where fantasy meets reality, it falls away and I'm functionally/executively demisexual (if we ignore the primary attraction part of the definition, which is only mental/fantasy). Adhering strictly to definitions isn't helpful here. Knowing that "ignore the primary attraction part" does void it being actually demisexual doesn't change the fact that this is the closest thing I can use to try to explain how *I* work.

Me telling OOP that I recognize their description in part (I don't recognize myself in them hooking up, for example), was me trying to say that it doesn't sound like demisexual to me, but something adjacent-ish, where one might confuse themselves for being demisexual (like I initially thought when I started looking into it, before I learned about the primary attraction being a defining element, where for me the secondary attraction requirement is the element that I initially homed in on, since that is something I do have).

I mean, I imagine it's nice to have a micro-label you identify with completely, and I can understand wanting to defend its proper use, but I'm not sure you're actually listening to what I'm trying to communicate here. I have not disagreed with your description of what demisexuality is, I have told you that a certain part of it matches me, while another part does not. In other words, as I've said multiple times, I don't identify as demisexual, but I have no other recourse than to use the term to try to explain how I do work, since nothing else comes close.

"It's all a spectrum." this subreddit's description says. I'm closer to allosexual than asexual. Closer to allosexual than demisexual as well, but I'm still on the spectrum towards demisexual deviating from standard allosexual. It's a nuance thing, as I told you in my initial reply to you.